beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 27, 1987, the Korea Housing and Commercial Bank Co., Ltd. applied the basic terms and conditions of banking loan transactions to the Defendant as a loan for the sale of national housing, and set the maturity of 4.5 million won on May 26, 2007.
(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b) The instant loan
The Korea Housing and Commercial Bank Co., Ltd. was merged with the Plaintiff on November 1, 2001.
C. The Defendant lost the interest of the instant loan due to the Plaintiff’s failure to repay the principal and interest of the instant loan, and as of November 14, 2012, the principal and interest of the loan amounting to KRW 4,301,610, and the fixed damages for delay are KRW 12,520,607, and the agreed overdue interest rate applied thereto is KRW 17% per annum.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 4, the purport of whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the principal amount of KRW 16,822,217 (i.e., KRW 4,301,610 for delay delay damages of KRW 12,520,607) and the principal amount of KRW 4,301,610 for the principal amount of KRW 4,610 for the period from November 15, 2012 to the date of full payment, barring any special circumstance.
B. (i) The Defendant’s counterclaims, etc. (i) The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the claim for loans from Suwon District Court Decision 2003Da36140, which had been decided on February 20, 2003 by the competent court, and again filed the lawsuit in this case on the ground of interruption of extinctive prescription despite the fact that the decision was confirmed upon the recommendation of performance recommendation, and the lawsuit for interruption of extinctive prescription is unlawful as it goes against res judicata, etc. However, if the Plaintiff again filed a lawsuit on the ground of Article 165(1) of the Civil Act for interruption of extinctive prescription, this is a legitimate lawsuit, and the Defendant’s main defense is groundless
The Defendant’s defense on the merits of the case was the Defendant’s loan of the Defendant’s housing fund. However, the instant loan contract was the case.